On February 14, 2011, the Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Rule 91.2.

On July 22, 2011, this Court dismissed Claim 4 of the petitionafter briefing by the parties.3.

Following various pretrial proceedings, the Court held a hearingbeginning on April 16, 2012, lasting five days and concluding on April 20,2012. Petitioner appeared in person and by counsel, Ms. Kathleen Zellner

and Mr. Douglas Johnson. Members of the Missouri Attorney General‟s Office

represented Respondent Dormire.4.

At the request of the parties, the Court allowed the parties untilJune 15, 2012, to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.5.

With regard to Claim 4, the allegation that the Lincoln County jury selection process did not comport with Missouri statute, this Court

With regard to Claims 2 and 3, petitioner may only overcome hisprocedural default of failing to raise those claims on direct appeal or in a Rule24.035 or Rule 29.15 motion, by showing showing it is more likely than not

that no reasonable juror would find him guilty in light of the “new evidence of innocence.”

Murray v. Carrier

, 477 U.S. 478, 496 (1986).11.

“[S]uch a claim requires petitioner to support his allegations of

constitutional error with new reliable evidence -- whether it be exculpatoryscientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts or critical physicalevidence -- that was not presented at trial. Because such evidence isobviously unavailable in the vast majority of cases, claims of actual innocence